Abstract
Chapter 8 points to the inefficiency of official development aid and Chap. 9 shows that public governance in its social and economic dimensions have an important and significant impact on ODA development success. While extremely important for daily subsistence and humanitarian basic needs, official aid seems to do little to help the world’s most underdeveloped nations in their quest for development at least in the short term; public governance, however, in its social and economic dimensions may have an important and significant impact on economic outcomes. Consequently, this chapter wonders whether weak public governance could partially explain the failure of official development aid to attaint objective of poverty eradication and development advance, and indirectly, whether good public governance could partially explain economic success.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Even though economic and political freedom may be linked. it will be hazardous for international agencies to engage in the sleepy field of political freedom.
- 2.
U.K. White Paper on International Development (2000). Eliminating World Poverty Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. At: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/whitepaper2000.pdf
Bibliography
Frieden, J. (2016). The governance of international finance. Harvard University. Annual Review of Political Science.
Haller, A. P, (2012), « Concepts of Economic Growth and Development. Challenges of Crisis and of Knowledge ». Economy Transdisciplinarity Cognition. Vol. 15, Issue 1/2012, pp. 66–71. At : www.ugb.ro/etc
U.K. White Paper (2000), “Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century”. At : http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20050404190659/http:/www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/whitepaper1997.pdf. Accessed on October 10, 2017.
World Bank. 2017. The Little Green Data Book 2017. World Development Indicators;. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27466 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 10.1: General Sample
General sample (169 countries) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | Country | Country | Country | Country | Country | Country | Country |
Afghanistan | Brazil | Cyprus | Guatemala | Kyrgyz Republic | Morocco | Romania | Sweden |
Albania | Brunei Darussalam | Czech Republic | Guinea | Laos | Mozambique | Russia | Switzerland |
Algeria | Bulgaria | Denmark | Guinea Bissau | Latvia | Namibia | Rwanda | Tajikistan |
Angola | Burkina Faso | Djibouti | Guyana | Lebanon | Nepal | Samoa | Tanzania |
Argentina | Burundi | Dominican Republic | Haiti | Lesotho | Netherlands | Sao Tome and Principe | Thailand |
Armenia | Cambodia | Ecuador | Honduras | Liberia | New Zealand | Saudi Arabia | Timor-Leste |
Australia | Cameroon | Egypt | Hungary | Luxembourg | Nicaragua | Senegal | Togo |
Austria | Canada | El Salvador | Iceland | Macedonia | Niger | Serbia | Trinidad and Tobago |
Azerbaijan | Cape Verde | Equatorial Guinea | India | Madagascar | Nigeria | Seychelles | Tunisia |
Bahamas | Central African Republic | Eritrea | Indonesia | Malawi | North Korea | Sierra Leone | Turkey |
Bahrain | Chad | Estonia | Iran | Malaysia | Norway | Singapore | Turkmenistan |
Bangladesh | Chile | Ethiopia | Iraq | Maldives | Oman | Slovak Republic | Uganda |
Barbados | China | Fiji | Ireland | Mali | Pakistan | Slovenia | Ukraine |
Belarus | Colombia | Finland | Israel and West Bank | Malta | Panama | Solomon Islands | United Arab Emirates |
Belgium | Comoros | France | Italy | Mauritania | Papua New Guinea | South Africa | United Kingdom |
Belize | Congo Democratic Republic | Gabon | Jamaica | Mauritius | Paraguay | South Korea | United States |
Benin | Congo Republic | Gambia | Japan | Mexico | Peru | Spain | Uruguay |
Bhutan | Costa Rica | Georgia | Jordan | Micronesia | Philippines | Sri Lanka | Uzbekistan |
Bolivia | Cote d’Ivoire | Germany | Kazakhstan | Moldova | Poland | Sudan | Venezuela |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | Croatia | Ghana | Kenya | Mongolia | Portugal | Suriname | Vietnam |
Botswana | Cuba | Greece | Kuwait | Montenegro | Qatar | Swaziland | Zambia |
Zimbabwe | |||||||
Appendix 10.2: Sub-samples
Low income | Country 2017 | Country 2017 | Country 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|
Country 2017 | Armenia | Albania | Australia |
Afghanistan | Azerbaijan | Algeria | Austria |
Bahrain | Bangladesh | Angola | Bahrain |
Benin | Bhutan | Argentina | Belgium |
Burkina Faso | Bolivia | Bahamas | Canada |
Burundi | Cambodia | Barbados | Cyprus |
Central African Republic | Cameroon | Belarus | Czech Republic |
Chad | Cape Verde | Belize | Estonia |
Comoros | Congo Republic | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Finland |
Congo Democratic Republic | Cote d’Ivoire | Botswana | France |
Denmark | Djibouti | Brazil | Germany |
Eritrea | Egypt | Brunei Darussalam | Greece |
Ethiopia | El Salvador | Bulgaria | Hungary |
Gambia | Equatorial Guinea | Chile | Iceland |
Guinea | Georgia | China | Ireland |
Guinea Bissau | Germany | Colombia | Israel and West Bank |
Haiti | Ghana | Costa Rica | Italy |
Japan | Guatemala | Croatia | Kuwait |
Liberia | Guyana | Cuba | Latvia |
Madagascar | Honduras | Dominican Republic | Luxembourg |
Malawi | India | Ecuador | Malta |
Mali | Indonesia | Fiji | Netherlands |
Mozambique | Kenya | Gabon | New Zealand |
Nepal | Kyrgyz Republic | Iran | Norway |
Niger | Laos | Jamaica | Oman |
North Korea | Lesotho | Jordan | Poland |
Rwanda | Mauritania | Kazakhstan | Portugal |
Senegal | Micronesia | Lebanon | Qatar |
Sierra Leone | Moldova | Macedonia | Saudi Arabia |
Tanzania | Mongolia | Malaysia | Singapore |
Togo | Morocco | Maldives | Slovak Republic |
Uganda | Nicaragua | Mauritius | Slovenia |
Zambia | Nigeria | Mexico | South Korea |
Zimbabwe | Pakistan | Montenegro | Spain |
Papua New Guinea | Namibia | Swaziland | |
Philippines | Panama | Switzerland | |
Samoa | Paraguay | United Arab Emirates | |
Sao Tome and Principe | Peru | United Kingdom | |
Sri Lanka | Romania | United States | |
Sudan | Russia | ||
Sweden | Serbia | ||
Tajikistan | Seychelles | ||
Timor-Leste | Solomon Islands | ||
Tunisia | Suriname | ||
Ukraine | Thailand | ||
Uzbekistan | Trinidad and Tobago | ||
Vietnam | Turkey | ||
Turkmenistan | |||
Uruguay | |||
Venezuela |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naciri, A. (2018). Empirical Assessment of Developing Countries’ Public Governance. In: The Governance Structures of the Bretton Woods Financial Institutions. SpringerBriefs in Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97906-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97906-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97905-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97906-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)